October 1, 2008

She staked out a populist stance against oil companies and projected a fresh, down-to-earth face at a time when voters wanted change....

Her debating style was rarely confrontational, and she appeared confident....

But just as she does now, Ms. Palin often spoke in generalities and showed scant aptitude for developing arguments beyond a talking point or two. Her sentences were distinguished by their repetition of words, by the use of the phrase “here in Alaska” and for gaps. On paper, her sentences would have been difficult to diagram.

John Bitney, the policy director for her campaign for governor and the main person who helped prepare her for debates, said her repetition of words was “her way of running down the clock as her mind searches for where she wants to go.”

These tendencies could fuzz her meaning and lead her into linguistic cul-de-sacs. She often used less than her allotted time and ended her answers abruptly.

When questioned about the nuts and bolts of governing, Ms. Palin tended to avoid specifics and instead fell back on her core values: a broadly conservative philosophy and a can-do spirit.

Actually, that sounds bad. Based on the headline -- "Past Debates Show a Confident Palin, at Times Fluent but Often Vague" -- I was going to accuse the NYT of trying to raise expectations of Palin so that she wouldn't be able to impress us by just showing up and minimally standing her ground. But the text of the article -- by Katharine Q. Seelye -- doesn't deserve that accusation.

The more Biden talks about his profoundly deep knowledge of policy and foreign leaders, the worse he makes it for himself.

In other words, the more he knows, the worse he does.

The less our Sarah knows, the better.

Biden is Sen. Joseph Paine, the corrupt white-haired politician in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." (1:58 in the clip)

What she lacks in experience, she makes up in fight!

Take a look at this country through her eyes if you want to see something! That lady stands for liberty! You won't just see scenery. You'll see what man's carved out for himself after centuries of fighting...to be free and decent.

I hope she gets into some good BIble talk, too, the same way Jimmy Stewart talks about lovin' thy neighbor. Somebody will listen to her....

"Perhaps her strength in debating was coming across like an average person who understood the average person’s needs and would not be expected to have detailed policy prescriptions."

This, in a nutshell, is the appeal of Sarah Palin.

Is it wise for people to want that common-person perspective in the executive? I think it is. But I don't think it's too much to ask to have that AND the ability to describe detailed policy prescriptions.

What about the fact that a rapid Obama supporter, Gwen Ifill, will be the moderator.

Ifill is not just an Obama supporter, she actually has a financial interest in Obama winning because she has a book on Obama scheduled to come out on Jan 20. If Obama loses, that book will be a loser too.

So in the back of Ifill's mind will not be just I want Barack to win. I want barack to win so I make lots of money.

Do people still diagram sentences? I mean, I'm using a curriculum in homeschooling which teaches that skill (weirdly, my son seems to like it--it must appeal to his sense of patterns and puzzles), but that approach has pretty much been out of style for, what? 40 years?

Usually, at least in my experience, the mention of diagramming sentences draws blank stares at best, disgust at worst.

That digression aside, it strikes me that relatively few politicians today are all that gifted, rhetorically, even in terms of speeches, much less in the context of debates. In this sense, Palin doesn't stand out all THAT much, at least to me. (This is not to say that I don't think there are substance issues with her; to the contrary. The same goes for Obama and, for that matter, McCain in a number of areas.)

As is traditional for me in election years, I've been re-reading all of the inaugural addresses given by all of our U.S. presidents, in order, as well as an assortment of other addresses. It's an illuminating exercise, not just historically, but in terms of language and style.

Personally I think Palin seems to be a nice enough person and based upon her record and popularity in Alaska seems to be a competent governor. That said, I don't think she is any more fit to lead from a national level than the very Junior Senator from Illinois who has a thinner record than she does.

But to somehow raise the bar for her when the very senior Senator from Delaware is given a pass every time he sticks his foot in his mouth is a bit rich.

I'll repeat; how this nation ended up with these two tickets is beyond my comprehension.

She needs to give short crisp answers and pound home on the theme "she's one of us". Let Joe do long winded answers. And send in a few digs at Biden. Sharp. Joe will get pissed "this lightweight" is taking down to him. Then he'll start digging.

Ifill needs to step aside. She has a clear appearance problem. Why wasn't this surfaced before? It will color her performance as moderator irregardless of how she plays it. The Debate commission blew this one.

With all due respect to the great legal minds around here, and I emphasize "due", her knowledge or lack of knowledge of court cases is far less important to me than her actual beliefs about certain issues. People who do things, hire lawyers.

So unless you went to some big time law school, you can't be a politician? So if you don't know the ins and outs of Morgan Stanley v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, you're just some backwoods doofus deserving of mockery?

I am not sure about Sarah Palin, but I am sure about the elitist snobbery shown by many over the last 5 weeks.

Currently reading Joseph Ellis's 'American Creation' in which he writes of the Virginia ratification debate between Patrick Henry and James Madison over the propose Constitution and in describing Henry's power to persuade Ellis writes,

Jefferson explained to Madison that Henry's oratorical power was an inexplicable and unpredictable force of nature, like a hurricane, and the only thing to do when confronted by it was to "devoutly pray for his imminent death."

It would be my pleasure to hear either candidate or, in deed, any candidate rise even close to such a level.

Biden comes from over 30 years in the Senate, the self-described "World's greatest deliberative body." A debate is a form of deliberation. However, an executive needs to make decisions, not debate endlessly on the issues. Neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience worthy of the name.

Jefferson explained to Madison that Henry's oratorical power was an inexplicable and unpredictable force of nature, like a hurricane, and the only thing to do when confronted by it was to "devoutly pray for his imminent death."

I don't know whether she's the Little House on the Prairie mom, Mrs. Walton, Sarah Connor, or Ripley from 'Alien,' but the media has been programming people for the past 20 years to respect normal women in powerful positions, the same way we've been programmed by beer commercials to think that regular ol' black guys and regular ol' white guys hang out in bars together.

It's one archetype pitted against another. Palin should be debating Obama.

I think Palin's whole *national* political career hangs in the balance with this debate. If she appears as dumb as some of the interviews seem to indicate, she's toast. OTH, if she does well, it will bolster her political future, regardless of the outcome of this election.